- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 21:44:25 +0100
- To: Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>, Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- CC: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>, "public-bpmlod@w3.org" <public-bpmlod@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <531A2FA9.9070904@w3.org>
Am 19.02.14 12:06, schrieb Jorge Gracia: > Dear all, > > Sorry for my late reply. Here you are some comments: > > From Felix: > > But I have a question: will we provide best practices in the form of > > "Do XYZ because ..." > > "Don't do XYZ because" > > The question is really about how the BP will be presented. > > As Jose pointed out, instead of than saying "do/ do not do" we will > try to identify under which conditions a pattern is better than the > others and why. With regard to the particular way of representing the > BPs, we have not decided it yet, so any suggestion will be welcome! > As for me, I think we should identify a list of generic tasks (e.g., > "multilingual linked data generation", "linked data localisation", > etc.), a decision tree for each of them with the subtasks to do, and > the best pattern to follow for each of the subtasks. > > > would it be ok to have an unstructured list of best pratice > statements in the wiki? > > Just to be able to keep track of discussions like the workflow topic > or the one at > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-translators/2014JanMar/0033.html > >That would not replace the existing structure. > > Of course! Actually our current page > https://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Best_practises_-_previous_notes > is intended to collect "draft" ideas and record some discussions > previous to the definition of the BPs, so feel free to add these > pointers there. > > > From Dave: > > 3) can we advise on use of some form of isTranslationOf or > isTranslatedFrom > > (not necessarily the same?) RDF relationship to use in linked data? > > Actually we are currently defining a translation module in lemon > within the ONTOLEX group. In that module we "reify" the translation > relation and associate relevant information to it (translation > source, translation target, context, confidence, ...). Maybe it helps. > > > To take this further, should we start a specific section in the > BP-MLOD wiki on the internationalsiation > > and localsiaiton of ontologies, discussing the use of labels, the > workflow and extraction into and > > merging from XLIFF and use of ITS within that workflow? It would be > useful then to get input/feedback > > from those involved in authoring and translating the like of DCAT and > the organisation ontology. > > Definitely YES! I was thinking on just jumping into that topic > directly for the next telco (instead of following the current > sequence), but seeing the list of topics we are really close, so maybe > is better to touch "dereferencing" for the next telco, as planned, and > then we'll move into everything related to textual information, > lexicalisation, localisation and all that stuff, which is the next set > of topics > (https://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Topic_classification). What > do you think? sounds good to me, I added a pointer to today's discussion - if the location is wrong feel free to move that pointer around. - Felix > > > Also, is now the time to start using the w3C issue tracker to help > manage the progress of different topics on the > > mailing list and in the meetings? That can help people in the > community to champion a particular topic and > > drive discussions to a resolution over time. > > +1 That sounds good to me. Although I have no experience with the W3C > issue tracker. Anyone can help with this? > > > Best regards, > > Jorge > > > -- > Jorge Gracia, PhD > Ontology Engineering Group > Artificial Intelligence Department > Universidad Politécnica de Madrid > http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~jgracia/ > <http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/%7Ejgracia/>
Received on Friday, 7 March 2014 20:44:57 UTC